Saturday, June 07, 2008

Just because the Democratic primary is (maybe) over does not mean you are not going to hear, and read, more election year rhetoric over health care, and health insurance.

(Some folks still make the terms interchangeable which only confuses the issue even more. Perhaps that is by design).

So now the Washington Post weighs on on health care, and health insurance with their own slant.

The referenced article points out the plight of "seven appealing individuals" who are without health insurance.

Appealing in what way?

Are we to be envious of them?

Six are white, and one is an African-American woman. There are no identifiable Hispanics.

The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor,

Frankly, I have a problem with those who seek to justify their position (on anything, not just health care) by segregating the numbers into neat little groups. White, black, hispanic, Asian homosexuals, under-privileged elementary school dropouts, cat owners, dog owners . . .

You get my point.

And here is an interesting aside.

Though the American Medical Association has been a consistent voice for covering the uninsured, it reserves its political muscle for issues that excite its members. And the blunt truth is that the percentage of physicians who actually provide care to the uninsured or to Medicaid patients has been steadily declining for a decade.

So the AMA wants to cover the uninsured but they don't want to treat them.

That's a conundrum.

As a self-employed consultant who pays more than $1,000 a month for a very modest family plan (and am grimly happy to have even this), I have gazed longingly at the $25 per month that a friend who belongs to a municipal union pays for a far more generous plan.

Just because the Democratic primary is (maybe) over does not mean you are not going to hear, and read, more election year rhetoric over health care, and health insurance.

(Some folks still make the terms interchangeable which only confuses the issue even more. Perhaps that is by design).

So now the Washington Post weighs on on health care, and health insurance with their own slant.

The referenced article points out the plight of "seven appealing individuals" who are without health insurance.

Appealing in what way?

Are we to be envious of them?

Six are white, and one is an African-American woman. There are no identifiable Hispanics.

The reality, however, is that only a minority of the uninsured are either the typical Redbook reader or that nice shopkeeper down the street. Two-thirds of those without health insurance are poor or near poor,

Frankly, I have a problem with those who seek to justify their position (on anything, not just health care) by segregating the numbers into neat little groups. White, black, hispanic, Asian homosexuals, under-privileged elementary school dropouts, cat owners, dog owners . . .

You get my point.

And here is an interesting aside.

Though the American Medical Association has been a consistent voice for covering the uninsured, it reserves its political muscle for issues that excite its members. And the blunt truth is that the percentage of physicians who actually provide care to the uninsured or to Medicaid patients has been steadily declining for a decade.

So the AMA wants to cover the uninsured but they don't want to treat them.

That's a conundrum.

As a self-employed consultant who pays more than $1,000 a month for a very modest family plan (and am grimly happy to have even this), I have gazed longingly at the $25 per month that a friend who belongs to a municipal union pays for a far more generous plan.